ArticlePeerJ2022
The choice of reference point for computing sagittal plane angular momentum affects inferences about dynamic balance.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plantar sensation associates with gait instability in older adults.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Perceived severity of forward versus backward balance disturbances during walking in young and older adults.PloS one · 2025Article
- Generalizability of foot placement control strategies during unperturbed and perturbed gait.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Electrical brain activity during human walking with parametric variations in terrain unevenness and walking speed.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Article
- Susceptibility to walking balance perturbations in young adults is largely unaffected by anticipation.Human movement science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Measures of whole-body angular momentum in the sagittal plane are commonly used to characterize dynamic balance during human walking. To compute angular momentum, one must specify a reference point about which momentum is calculated. Although biomechanists primarily compute angular momentum about the center of mass (CoM), momentum-based controllers for humanoid robots often use the center of pressure. Here, we asked if the choice of the reference point influences interpretations of how dynamic balance is controlled in the sagittal plane during perturbed walking. Methods: Eleven healthy young individuals walked on a dual-belt treadmill at their self-selected speed. Balance disturbances were generated by treadmill accelerations of varying magnitudes and directions. We computed angular momentum about two reference points: (1) the CoM or (2) the leading edge of the base of support and then projected it along the mediolateral axes that pass through either of the reference points as the sagittal plane angular momentum. We also performed principal component analysis to determine if the choice of reference point influences our interpretations of how intersegmental coordination patterns contribute to perturbation recovery. Results: We found that the peak angular momentum was correlated with perturbation amplitude and the slope of this relationship did not differ between reference points. One advantage of using a reference point at the CoM is that one can easily determine how the momenta from contralateral limbs, such as the left and right legs, offset one another to regulate the whole-body angular momentum. Alternatively, analysis of coordination patterns referenced to the leading edge of the base of support may provide more insight into the inverted-pendulum dynamics of walking during responses to sudden losses of balance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.